White House response to secession-type petition. Have you been snookered?

These petitions mean NOTHING. This is a way to weasel around the People's right to redress grievances. Well, it is also a great way to get restless people to self identify, but it does nothing for liberty. AJ either misspoke or lied about there being a law demanding action. The White House graciously agrees to "review" and "respond" at 25,000 signatures. Here is what the website says:
"The right to petition your government is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We the People provides a new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. We created We the People because we want to hear from you. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response."
What does "respond" mean? There are 82 examples of a response on their website.https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/responses
Here is one:

A petition reached the required number of signatures regarding "Restore democracy by ending corporate personhood."

The White House reviewed it, sent it to the appropriate agencies, and issued this response:

"Building a Government that Serves Ordinary Americans, Not Special Interests

By Tonya Robinson

Thank you for taking the time to participate in the We the People petition process. We launched this online tool as a way of hearing directly from you and are pleased to see that it has been effective in soliciting your feedback. We understand your interest in the petition to support "ending corporate personhood," and we appreciate this opportunity to share the Obama Administration's stance on this issue.

First, you should know that the President believes the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case that you referenced is contrary to the public interest, in large part because it has resulted in lobbyists and special interest groups having greater, and less transparent, influence on elections. As soon as the Court announced its decision in 2010, the President instructed his Administration to get to work immediately to forge a bipartisan response to this decision. The Administration continues to work with Members of Congress and other stakeholders to find a negotiated solution to the dire results of Citizens United.

The President's disagreement with Citizens United is consistent with his long-standing commitment to make government decision-making more accessible and responsible to ordinary Americans. Under his direction, this Administration has taken historic steps to close the "revolving door" that carries special interest influence in and out of the government. For the first time in history, we now publicly disclose the names of everyone who visits the White House. The President also strongly supported a bill in Congress that would have required the disclosure of the names of corporate donors that finance political ads – legislation that Congress failed to enact.

President Obama has repeatedly challenged business as usual in Washington, and will continue to fight to preserve the American democratic tradition. Thank you once again for signing the online petition."

As far as I know they have not responded to any of them yet. When I posted this, there were threads on here saying things like "only 2000 signatures and my state is free" and that is the delusion I was trying to cure.
These petitions have NO force of law, they are not gathering legitimate signatures and are simply ritual mockery of the very legitimate petitions Bob Schulz put together and presented 4 years ago. His petitions had legal signatures and he fought all the way to the Supreme Court for "redress of grievances" and lost. Bob called his organization "We The People." Obama calls this petition process "We the people." Coincidence? I doubt it.
Let me go out on a limb - the official response will be something like...
"The President would like to thank the millions of Americans who expressed their discontent with the current state of the Union. President Obama agrees that drastic changes are necessary to ensure equality for all and is working diligently to bring these changes about. Remember Mrs. Obama was chided for commenting that "Now, she is proud to be an American?" The President and his wife are completely sympathetic to your discontent and assure you that by the end of his term, you will be proud to be an American again, too."

If you look at the responses, it does not matter what the issue is, the answer is basically the same: "Blah, blah, blah."

in the Schulz law suit and really thought it might go somewhere.
Bob Schulz is a wonderful, freedom loving, fighting man and has my full respect and backing in whatever he does in this cause of freedom.

I had the pleasure of meeting him in N.H. during the 2008 recount.

Very say how "We The People" are being ignored and considered terrorists by our "servants".

The war between the states was not fought over slavery.
Lincoln's stated goal was to save the union - not prevent slavery.

Is there no rest for sheeple stupidity and lack of historical knowledge?
The "affinity marketing" is to promote a racist conflict among the people- apparently you are fanning the flames.
Perhaps you should be more attentive to Ron Paul's views on that war -
and the Civil Rights Act - but I suppose you'd view him "racist" as well?
PS..Ron Paul did not laugh at the "secession" idea - why are you?
If you aren't willing to be "laughed" at - then you'll never be a Ron Paul supporter...
Oh, and why are you assuming the petitions are all "Tea Party" supporters? I don't think so.

To say that the single largest cause of debt in the North and South was NOT the cause for war -- is to ignore the reasons why civil wars take place (either to alleviate debt or to gain ill-gotten style).

I never said all petitions are Tea Party supporters -- you did.

I do not "support" Ron Paul -- I applaud his ideology and bravery. Also, I do not live in Texas so I do not vote him into office. Lastly, voting and lobbying equals (abdication of POS-rule and Bribery) -- I do not vote or lobby.

Civil Rights Act was a piece of racist legislation -- however it was presided by all manner of racist legislation so why not have one that "sides" (seemingly -- not saying it does) with the little guy. I'm 100% against welfarism, reservation-ism, and rights (all rights) -- so don't get me twisted here.

What I'm saying is that once the wealthy formed the first union (only allowing wealthy WASPS Males the right to vote) they saw the divisive power in allowing "everyone" to vote and slowly doled out those "rights" -- Every War, Every bit of Un-ethical Legislation, Every Divide and Conquer tactic (et al) ALWAYS begins with "voting" and where there is voting there is always bribery (lobbying).

I will repeat - the south Did Not SECEDE because they wanted to keep slavery. It was over states rights.
All your "showy" ramblings of previously known knowledge did not present one factor that would disprove my statement.
Volumes have been written about every aspect of that war - however, the CAUSE remains the same...The south seceded over states rights. They were free to do so under the Constitution. Lincoln saved the Union but destroyed the Republic (admittedly so). Welcome to the Federal Government.

Do you think that 260,000 southerners died to keep slavery - particularly the poor boys? Do you think that 360,000 northerners died simply to free the southern slaves?
You need to get in reality.

Can we both agree that if the Southern States give their reason for going to War (to secede) was directly related to slavery that that is the truth -- Or will you ignore what they actually said (especially their actions that reflect it) to stick to a modern day historical revisionism that the reason for going to war was NOT slavery? Will their own words and resolutions be enough for you, is what I'm asking?

Google: Secession Commissioners

The S-C's were men sent to the other Southern Slave Owning States to get them to join the Confederacy -- the rationale for secession they used WAS the rationale for secession -- the "public" version (solely about state-rights and not about slavery) was just that, it was the public populace version. They could NOT convince the other Southern States to secede based on that logic; so, they came at them from the "real" reason the continuation and expansion of slavery.

Google: Declaration of Causes Civil War

Read each states rationale for secession -- they spell it out, each state (every single one of them uses the words slavery, slave, or slaveholder anywhere from 5 to 20 times -- I think Mississippi was the most blunt).

Google: Southern Currency Slave Images

Among the Southern States there were 75 images of slavery on their currency -- Over 80% of the Souths economy was DIRECTLY tied to slavery the other 20% was INDIRECTLY tied to it. To argue that secession was about economics and not slavery is to ignore the Southern Economy; do you think it was fought for "economic books" or "economic lectures" -- They didn't just wake up one day and say, "let's break from the union" there was CAUSE (and they state the causes in their "declaration of causes," it is printed on their currency, and it was red on their ledger (the staggering debt to the Banks of England and France -- Rothschild's).

My history doesn't need "clearing" - nor my education - nor my ability to google. As I stated earlier - there have been volumes written about all facets of the civil war (or war between the states) - you read your versions - I'll read mine. The truth is hard to come by - so please stop referencing quotes from your "sources" as though you have some direct line to the truth about a very complicated issue - for I can find just as many sources/quotes/opinions of experts to back up my views.

Don't try to cram some current modern book down my throat as though it is a divine revelation simply because some author backs up how YOU wish it to be - and flame the fires of racial divide in this country. Will you race biters ever quit??? YES...YOU...those who attempt to demonize the "south" of the past are the same one who 150 years later are still fighting, accusing and blaming. YOU are more a racist than any body who signed some state 'secession' petition. I doubt that "slavery" was on anybody's mind that signed those petitions. They were thinking of freedom - for everyone.
Why don't YOU try thinking of "everyone" instead of hyper-focusing on some obsessive resentment against a whole section of our country that you can't shed.

Any response from you is pointless - there is absolutely nothing that you have to say that would even remotely influence my views on this topic so go spew your racist propaganda on someone else. I'm through.

of history (thanks DiLorenzo) that you have NEVER read anything written by the Southern Secession Commissioners.

The language they used to convince the other Southern States who did not immediately join the confederacy (as did South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) is the language of "why" the war took place.

Please learn about Google and it's many wonders.

Go Search: Secession Commissioners and Declaration of Causes
of Seceding States

Also (for your education) IF the South did not secede for slave-economic reasons (though 80% of their wealth came direct from slave-products and trade and nearly 20% of the remainder came indirectly from slave-products and trade) THEN WHY when we look at the currency of the southern states there are 75 engravings of slaves being put to work ON THE BILLS themselves, hahahahahaha.

Their very currency (how important is the currency argument to Ron Paul) was built off and contained the images of slavery!

Your arguments are the result of a public education.

There were 7 states that seceded IMMEDIATELY when Lincoln took office -- why? Why would they secede immediately and why did the other slave states (especially the powerhouses Virginia and North Carolina) NOT?

The Lower South (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) sent "secession commissioners" to convince the big slave states to secede with them otherwise their "gambit" would not work out.

Rather than debate your "words" about the made-public reasons (and I admit the public reasons for secession were strictly political -- but my argument is that was made for the North and the World Witnesses); let's just look at the language they used the "reasons" they used to convince the other slave states to join the confederacy.

Secession Commissioners:

William Harris, sessions-commissioner to Georgia, put the choice before the south squarely in the context of preserving slavery: “[Either] this new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, without slavery; or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free negroes, either, to molest us.”

Judge Alexander Handy, session-commissioner to Maryland, stated that “The first act of the black republican party will be to exclude slavery from all the Territories, the District [of Columbia], the arsenals and forts, by the action of the federal government. That would be a recognition that slavery is a sin… The moment that slavery is pronounced a moral evil—a sin—by the general government, that moment the safety of the rights of the South will be entirely gone.”

Do we take my word for it (which is based on economics) that the South and North fought over slavery OR that we take her word for it (that the South did not Secede owing to slavery) OR and I think this is the better choice DO WE take the word of the Southern States themselves (as to the reason WHY they went to war)?

Whose word do we take: Mine, Dun, or the South's.

Google: Southern Secession Commissioners (just read the language they used to insight the "other" Southern States to join the damn Confederacy.

Google: The actual Declarations of War (submitted by each southern state)

"We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the Constitution, and the peace of the country both forbid us — We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because the constitution demands it"

Now that's not all of his speech but it should show you that he was not against the states that had slavery, keeping slavery. If it were truly over slavery, he wouldn't have said those words.

The Secession Commissioners only ever talked about the threat to slave-products -- 80% of Southern GDP was tied to Slavery -- Countries only EVER go to war to expand their current mix of profit-drivers or to find new ones; the South did not go to war to find new profit drivers.

Lincoln also said during the Civil War that he always felt Slavery was Un-just and could not remember a time when he did not feel so.

I think Lincoln was going through a calculated "publically viewed" change of heart.

You accept that the South said they were seceding for "economic" reasons and the right to secede (just because they can?) -- even though 80% of their profit-drivers came from slave-produce; but you will not accept that Lincoln was also playing a public game? It is NOT logical.

How about this -- Will you accept the Declaration of Causes as WRITTEN by the Governors of each Southern State that addresses their reasons for secession AS the actual reason -- or will you still side with Woods ignoring the easy-to-see facts I'm outlining.

Just Google: Declaration of Causes

That should end the debate -- it negates everything any Rothbardian would ever say on the matter -- I mean the Declaration of Causes IS the LISTED REASONS given by each state, hahaha -- if you can't accept that then you'd accept anything.

My opinion (at this point) is that you and Dunn do not want to know the truth.

The Declaration of Causes is what THE STATES wrote themselves as the reasons for secession -- Especially read Mississippi's.

Dunn actually accused me of wanting her to read a "modern book" -- These Declaration of Causes (OH read the Confederate Constitution for god's sake) are from 1860.

The letters and speeches given by the Secession Commissioners happened in 1860 -- "believing" DiLorenzo, Rockwell, or Woods on this topic is to take a "modern" view -- since they ignore or were ignorant of the "Declaration of Causes," speeches given by the "Secession Commissioners" (outlining the reasons to secede), and the Confederate Constitution -- HAHAHAHAAHAHA. There is NO WAY they were ignorant to these FACTS.

historical facts -- using Google and your own brain; rather, you will "swallow" whatever the Rothbardians spit out?

I'm giving you the tools to un-cover truth -- It proves DiLorenzo, Woods, Rockwell, and Rothbard are all wet when it comes to the "reasons" the South entered the Civil War; which is the argument I've been making forever on DP from a purely economic rationale.

If you can't follow the "debt" then will you LISTEN to the words spoken and written by the South from 1860 as to the reasons they entered the War?

Why do the Rothbardians lie or Why are the Rothbardians ignorant [in regard to Southern Secession, Why the War was Fought].

Why is there not ONE copy of the Confederate Constitution on the Mises homepage -- that doens't sound strange as much as they hail the "peace loving south" vs the "tyranical slave loving Lincoln"

What he said was factually incorrect. How would you phrase that, or do you just look the other way when someone you idolize tells you things that are not true?

And, not so rhetorically, what are you doing? I am starting an organic farm and teaching about aquaponics and giving people the stuff to start an AP system and helping schools put them in and fighting to help my friends (google "He's A Constitutionalist") and now fighting to get my future daughter in law out of the clutches of the prison for profit county jail (see my thread "Up close and personal with the prison for profit system") but besides that, not much. I have spent all morning trying to listen to the AJ broadcast that everyone here spoke so highly of, slow connection and endless fearmongering are all I have heard so far - although it looks like a guest is about to get a word in edgeways.

If you want to know the truth, you must question everything you hear and stop taking anyone's word as "gospel." Unless you think AJ is Jesus 2.

do you speak for everyone,like you have done for AJ?
he has absolutely no clout with me,so there goes your defense
in that statement(the worlds coming to and end,here, buy my cd for $19.95)
you have also proposed fishyculture has been speaking for him,and yet
in your words"i am certain","i am fairly certain"so just who has been speaking in his place? it certainly wasn't FC,that was you
did you do as you were asked,by providing a link? why,no you haven't
you see,you attacked FC for something,then turn around and do the same thing,you have no more clout with me than aj does
deacon

—

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)
d

It's absurd that people who call themselves Patriots would even ask for a link to what I have stated. Get off of your lazy hippie asses and google the history of the Founding Documents and why they were written in the first place.

I really don't know which is worse.. The fact that there are so many willfully ignorant wannabees in the Liberty movement or that I find myself arguing with them.

Well I'm done being a teacher. Educate yourself for a change for fucks sake.

it is worse dealing with so called know it alls
you were called out for being an idiot,amongst other things
the proof is in your post and your tactics,fishy called you on it
as i did,and your only retort is deflect blame and attention
away from that fact
you might think you are smart for your unending use of words
but others not so much,such a smart guy like you,should have known that
"look at me,i yelled louder and use big words"
i am done with the likes of you,grow up
oh and do your own research and homework,or better yet,re-read these posts of yours,you are a bad mix of hypocrite and idiot
peace out(thats what us hippies say all the time)

—

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)
d

Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer